MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3096693600

Technology-Mediated Data, its Integration and its Impact on Intensive Care Cognitive Work

2018· dissertation· en· W3096693600 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Ying Lin

Notice bibliographique

RevueTSpace · 2018
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesHospital for Sick Children
Mots-clésWork (physics)CognitionData sciencePsychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceEngineeringNeuroscienceMechanical engineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Intensive care clinicians face an ever-increasing burden of continuous data from monitoring and therapeutic technologies. Under typically hurried and stressful conditions, these continuous arrays of high-resolution data make interpretation even more challenging. Data integration technologies that organize and visually communicate meaning may potentially improve team decision making but have yet to show compelling evidence on the benefits to individual performance, or team performance for that matter. Facets of decision making which are not well understood are the role of contemporary intensive care technologies in decision making, the technology-mediated cognitive processes, and the effects of dense, multi-parametric visualizations on data retrieval, integration and interpretation tasks. Therefore, this thesis investigates these facets of decision making in the contemporary intensive care unit from the perspective of physicians, nurses and respiratory therapists. The focus on clinicians in this particular sociotechnical setting is known as Human factors, an area of research which seeks to understand the interaction between humans and technologies and optimize overall system performance. Through the lens of these three types of clinicians we inform the design of data integration technologies, specifically T3™, a state-of-the-art data integration and visualization technology. It enables tasks related to Tracking of physiologic signals, displaying Trajectory, and Triggering decisions. This thesis consists of a systematic review of literature related to data integration and visualization technology for intensive care decision-making and three experimental phases. First, the systematic review was conducted to identify studies that looked at decision making processes using technological sources and the facilitation of these processes using decision support tools. The systematic review identified qualitative studies which described physicians’ and nurses’ cognitive processes during clinical tasks and quantitative studies which measured differences in human performance in terms of time, accuracy of decisions, and cognitive load. Collectively, the most mature technologies had been developed over decades and were informed by both qualitative and quantitative studies. A meta-analysis, or aggregation of data from multiple studies, found that perceived mental and temporal demands were lower, and performance was better with new data visualizations compared to traditional paper-based systems. Second, the cognitive processes of physicians, nurses and respiratory therapists, were analyzed using the macrocognition framework, a taxonomy for cognitive processes occurring in complex, real-world settings. The framework was used to analyze interview data of critical decision-making and the role of technology-mediated sources. Among ten macrocognitive processes, Sensemaking was heavily informed and influenced by technology. For Sensemaking, physicians utilized all sources available and compartmentalized the data sets according to different physiological systems. Nurses were the most active in their manipulation of technology and devoted much of their cognition to communicating information to physicians and respiratory therapists. Respiratory therapists made sense of data specific to the respiratory system and had in-depth knowledge of respiratory support data. These findings suggest that to improve team care, it is essential that data integration technologies be designed for nurse usability and that Sensemaking should be tailored to each type of clinician. Third, a heuristic evaluation method, a low-cost method to test interface compliance with usability design principles, was conducted on T3™. Evaluation, by a team of two clinicians and two human factors specialists found 50 usability issues associated with 194 heuristic violations. Issues included (1) difficulty with choosing the time period of the patient data signals, (2) distinguishing between several patient signals and (3) imperceptible changes in physiological values; both issues could lead nurses to misinterpret the timing and/or the physiological status of the patient (e.g., time of shock and exact value of vitals). Timescale manipulation and rapid visualization of out-of-range signals were identified as catastrophic issues that should be addressed. Fourth, usability testing identified interface facilitators and barriers to the use of T3™ by physicians, nurses and respiratory therapists. The current interface facilitated simple tracking and trajectory tasks when a small set of parameters were displayed simultaneously. The barriers included: (1) difficulty with acquiring multiple parameter data from data-dense visualizations and perceiving out-of-target data and (2) limited clinical context of integrated continuous data due separate clinical notes (e.g., in the electronic medical record). Though T3™ integrated and condensed large amounts of data, visual pattern overload and poor data recall obfuscated the raw data and thus, hindered data interpretation. While this study tested T3™, findings and design recommendations may be applied generally to technologies that display data in a similar format or to the same degree of integration, as the T3™ version studied. Overall, this thesis contributes to the understanding of how fractured clinical data and information systems and their integration impact intensive care cognitive work.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,674
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,058
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,379 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTSpaceMême sujetHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringTravaux en français237 207